Skip to main content
1:00 am
balanced approach to addressing what is a structural imbalance in our budget, so this just shows you the sort of share of what each solution's share is towards reducing that shortfall, so you can see ongoing departmental savings initiatives, about a quarter of the overall approach, employee benefits, employee salary and benefit costs, about 20%, revenue, about 18%, and then all these other smaller pieces. i'm happy to take any questions. i think today before you, there's no action item. my understanding is that the item for action will be coming back before you at the same time as the capital plan and the it plan, and certainly i'm happy to take any feedback or recommendations that you would
1:01 am
have for me about this plan. the other thing i would just mention is that this plan also gives you an early sense of the kinds of solutions that will be necessary to balance the next two year budge so to the degree that you would like to give me feedback about that, that would be helpful as well. >> thank you, ms. howard, supervisor breed? >> thank you, what are we talking about in terms of the amount of money we're looking at if we were to absorb the increase in hotel tax revenue into the general fund? >> i don't know if i have that number off the top of my head. i do have it at my table. can i get it for you in a moment? >> yes, thank you. >> okay, colleagues?
1:02 am
any other questions at this time? supervisor mar? >> thank you, ms. howard, i was going to ask you, i know that we're going to talk about set-asides in a moment, so the five year plan assumes the reauthorization of proposition h or the public education enrichment fund and the children's fund, is that right? >> that's correct, supervisor. we certainly discussed what made the most sense to assume, but given the significant interest and the importance of both of those funds, we assumed that both of them would be reauthorized and to the degree that they were -- if they were not to be reauthorized, that would change the projection. >> and given how voters of overwhelmingly supported the children's fund and prop h over the years, hopefully that's a good assumption.
1:03 am
there is an amount of money that as the trigger has been pulled for the public education enrichment funds that i think is over 100 million and i know a couple of my colleagues said that amount should be paid back to the school district, but can you explain how prop h operates and if it's recuperates, we don't have to pay that back to the school district. >> so, the way the charter works is if proposition h were not renewed or reauthorized, then the city would owe -- would be required to repay all of the amounts that it had deferred over the last several years and would have three years in which to do that. if it is renewed, then that's not required. >> do you know off the top of your head how much that is?
1:04 am
>> i do not, but it is i believe in the neighborhood of 70 million dollars. >> colleagues, any other questions at this time, supervisor wiener? >> thank you, ms. howard, just one question. on slide 15 where it talks about fiscal strategies, additional tax fees and other revenues, is that -- does that include the 55 million for the vls? >> it includes an amount that is equal to that, whether or not it would be the vls, i don't know, but it does assume that effective in the 15-16 fiscal year, there would be significant additional revenue of about 55 million dollars. >> okay, and so if you look at the bulk of the increase and the growth in the years, a majority of that is that 55 million, whether it's vls or
1:05 am
something else? >> that's correct. >> and so my understanding of the state legislation that senator leno was thankfully able to get there will you, it would be a general tax that goes into the general fund, right? >> that's right, so if the measure were to be -- if a measure related to the vlf would be placed on the ballot in november of 14, it would be available to the city in the subsequent year and would be a general revenue to the city unless it were a measure accompanied it to dedicate it in some way. >> right, so i know -- obviously it's a general tax and it cannot be a legally dedicated tax, but i know that there are many, myself included, and i imagine a majority of san franciscans based on polling i've seen who wlao*ef that the vlf revenue
1:06 am
should be dedicated exclusively to transit and road resurfacing, and in fact i think st voters lacked confidence in that, i think it would almost certainly fail, so i think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that if we look at this projected possible increase, that 55 million of that, if that's the vlf and if we have either the discipline or an accompanying set-aside, then that 55 million may be dedicated to transit and road resurfacing. >> i think it's an excellent point, supervisor. the -- as i think some of you know, the city's capital plan this year includes some recommendations related to additional funding for streets and transit and our overall transportation system which are
1:07 am
included, those costs are include ined the five-year financial plan outlook, and the plan -- the capital plan does make recommendations about matching a vlf to those kinds of uses. >> and as you know, the prop b resurfacing money trails off, we're going to be in trouble if we don't have something replacing it. the voters i think accepted our argument that prop b would be a bridge and we would then have time to find more sustainable funding so we can keep up the road resurfacing and i think it's important that we don't slip back into our negligent past ways of underfunding roads, i think the same is true of muni when you look at the level of deferred maintenance and our consistent underfunding of transit in the city and i do have concerns with the vlf funding if we put it on the ballot and if it passes, there
1:08 am
could be a budget free-for-all, including some worthy policy objectives would try to take a piece of that when it should be dedicated to transit and road resurfacing and i think there's a lot of us that would have trouble supporting it if we didn't have that confidence. >> thank you for stating that. i know you as well as supervisor avalos and supervisor chu have been -- and will be working with the mayor closely on the transportation task force and my hope is that through that process, there will be an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues in a more robust way. >> i look forward to that. i think we've had an ongoing discussion recently about transit money and how they're to be used. >> colleagues, any other
1:09 am
questions? supervisor breed? >> so, are we going the get the number today or probably later? >> i'll get it for you when i get back to my little desk over there. >> okay, so i just wanted to in regards to -- it would help me to understand how i would make any recommendations if i knew what that amount potentially is and what the impacts have been over the course of the past few years. my recommendation is that we look at increasing the allocation to the arts community and what that would mean in terms of numbers, i'm not certain, but that's something i would like to see if at all possible for the current fiscal year and to not continue to defer in the next two fiscal years based on the plan. thank you. >> okay, colleagues, any other questions? seeing none, thank you, ms. howard.
1:10 am
i would like to open this up to the members of the public. i have one speaker card by debbie vermin. >> good afternoon, supervisors, debbie ler m*in from the san francisco human services network. this five-year plan is to some degree divorced from discussion of our values and priorities in the sense that what we need is a plan for how san francisco will maintain sustainable health and human services for all of our residents including the most as a result -- vulnerable, there are two issues, one, there is no cpi assumed for dpis cal year 13 mf 14 for non-profits and two, there is no reduced or cost of doing business increases as a balance strategy throughout this report. the assumption that there is no cpi to non-profits this coming year was made because it wasn't part of the last budget. that's a fantasy, we never had
1:11 am
a conversation about this second fiscal year in the two year budget and non-profits are facing the same cost pressures the city is facing, health care costs and inability to give raises, the issues are all the same, we have said repeatedly, if we are part of the solution, then we want to be part of the problem, we need to be in this deficit, secondly, the assumption that there won't be any cost of doing business increases, it costs around 20%. years of double digit health care costs, no raises, the city keeps paying lip service to this issue you tell us we're important, let's do something about it in good faith, let's have the conversation and not shut the door. >> any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 1? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed.
1:12 am
colleagues, at this point, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> second. >> okay, second, we can do that without opposition. so moved. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> item number 2 is a hearing of city's reserve and set aside policy for
1:13 am
1:14 am
1:15 am
1:16 am
1:17 am
1:18 am
1:19 am
1:20 am
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
1:25 am
1:26 am
1:27 am
1:28 am
1:29 am

March 21, 2013 1:00am-1:30am PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY Ms. Howard 4, The City 3, Us 3, San Francisco 2, Dpis Cal 1, Mf 1, Leno 1, Chu 1, Wiener 1, Avalos 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color